Calixto
Smash Apprentice
...Alright. Well then what would 'we' require for something to be banned? All previous examples of banning something or some tactic in some game got down to over centralization.
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Over-Centralization: What should the community's tolerance be?
- Thread starter adumbrodeus
- Start date
...Alright. Well then what would 'we' require for something to be banned? All previous examples of banning something or some tactic in some game got down to over centralization.
CaliburChamp
Smash Master
I very VERY much believe that the smash community bans WAY too many stages from play. Less stages used = Less Strategic Depth of the game. Take Metaknight Dimensional Cape, and DDD infinite grab, these techniques are all stage dependant. Take MK or DDD to Hanenbow, and this no longer becomes a problem. This smash community is OBSESSED with starter stages, its disgusting!
The Halloween Captain
Smash Master
The lack of detrimental reasons to ban something, with multiple beneficial affects to a ban.
The main reason the D3 infinity might qualify is solely because there has been no metagame developement because of it, but rather it hinders the metagame of six characters. With no disadvantages to banning it whatsoever (I have looked and asked about these a lot in this debate, haven't found any), and multiple strong advantageous reasons to ban it, a ban makes sense.
If only the lack of any reason to not ban something made it easier to ban something that is completely detrimental to the game, this debate would be simpler. And the lack of reasons not to do something should be noted in this type of thing, rarely does a ban have only upsides, and strong ones too. Actually, the fact that the North East already institutes this ban might be a precident for banning it.
You know, we don't technically know if the infinity causes overcentralization, the tactic has been used as long as Brawl has been out. It would be funny if the reason MK does so well is because D3 has those infinities, turning away would-be players
TeeVee
Smash Lord
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2008
- Messages
- 1,570
...MK can still do the dimensional cape infinite and d3 can still do the infinite at hanenbow.
Calixto
Smash Apprentice
Halloween Captain, I can't help but think that 'hindering metagame' is the same as 'over centralization'.
The Halloween Captain
Smash Master
Oh.
Yeah, it didn't occur to me they might be synonimous.
Actually, if you main an infinitable, D3 IS overcentralizing (I'd imagine), he's a common character who is very oftenly picked to counter DK, Luigi, and the rest. It's only if you don't main any character involved that D3's infinities are only a minor influence. Bum probably faces a lot more D3's than Forte.
Calixto
Smash Apprentice
The infinite doesn't cut 30% of the cast which is why I guess people don't want to ban it. Which is ridiculous, because DDD doesn't lose anything if it was banned. He would just have to actually fight those characters then.
Ludicrous I know, DDD fighting in a fighting game.
Ludicrous I know, DDD fighting in a fighting game.
The Halloween Captain
Smash Master
Well, D3 is a King. So I guess it's not surprising he's good at sitting. And torture. The D-infinity is just a combination of his two hobbies.
Mr.Victory07
Smash Lord
Hmm, MK makes about 60% of the cast unviable, wouldnt he be banned in your definition?
The Halloween Captain
Smash Master
No. Characters are much harder to ban than tactics. Character bans have many more downsides that tactic bans, they remove sections of the community from tournament play. Since it's always the best character that is banned, it is often the most popular character that is banned, and thus, the largest single fan base is removed from the tourney scene. Characters must be much more broken than tactics if you want to ban them, because it is much more dangerous to ban a character than a tactic.
Incidently, the D-infinity is arguably much more broken than MK. MK's good matchups aren't as rediculously in his favor as D3's, even against Captain Falcon.
QFT
And to the above: please don't compare ANY matchup to DDD's infinite matchups please. MK being able to edgeguard or outspeed someone is nothing compared to DDD sitting there infiniting someone where they're button input has NO influence whatsoever on his "combo" until they're dead.
Why can't D3 just be happy with a standard gay chaingrab eh??? Yeah yeah I know luigi can't be, but seriously...you'd rather infinite him than just play the game? D3 is still very good without this tactic.
The Halloween Captain
Smash Master
QFT.
As irritating as it would be if Captain Falcon had the infinite instead, it wouldn't be a big deal because it wouldn't break matchups and make characters unviable. Captain Falcon has too much going against him, even with an infinity. D3 is top tier before the infinity - I doubt it actually affects his tier placement.
Jewdo
Smash Journeyman
I think 50% for a character and 30% for a tactic are pretty small percents to use.Try 70% or so. I'm fully on your side about having a numerical standard for ban-related things, but the numbers just have to be higher.
A game needs to have enough viable characters to be interesting, yes. However, ALL of its characters needn't be viable. SF3: Third Strike has maybe 6 tourney-usable characters, but SF3 is still played competitively to this day. Also Melee, realistically, has less than half the cast usable, and it's still an okay game. But when we talk about allowing a tech/character to weed 6 characters out of a 35-character game, things get messy. Brawl gets called all kinds of names, flame wars begin, and nobody is happy until the process is over, past, and long forgotten.
I think a lot of this ban-wagon stuff, while the result of justified feelings by dedicated X-person mainers, is an unjustified over-reaction to the natural evolution of a tournament game. How many fighting games do you know where every character is tourney playable? How about 70% of the characters? 50%? 30%? I honestly don't know ALL of these numbers, but GGXX:AC is the ONLY game where I know 50% or more of the characters can win tournaments if played properly. MvC series, SF Alpha, SSF2T, KoF '98, KoF XI, SSBM... I'm pretty sure at least 25-30% of the characters in each of those games are unusable (or at least VERY un-wise) in a tournament setting. Somebody more knowledgeable than me, please provide statistics. I am too tired to check the exact numbers right now. Thanks in advance.
In SSBM, Sheik, Falco, and Marth ruin the entire bottom half of the cast (taken together or individually). Sheik's d-throw chain, almost by itself, renders a lot of characters weak and useless at her feet. SSBM lives on, though. Oh, and Sheik has long since been toppled from God Tier.
I think SSBB is just at that critical early stage in a game's competitive development, where some of the fat gets trimmed and feelings get hurt left and right. I'm truly sorry for all the DK mains out there who get new orifices torn when their opponent picks D3. And everyone else facing similar situations. Just bear with it, though, be open to switching mains, and in a year or two, we'll all be laughing. Just like all the SSBM players who called for a ban on Sheik or Marth when the extents of their shut-down match-ups were first discovered.
I am VERY sleepy right now, so my thoughts may not be perfectly coherent. Feel free to comment, correct, or flat out tear my argument apart. Just have fun doing it and consider the basic premise of my argument - it's okay for a few characters to fall by the wayside, as long as the game as a whole still retains a reasonable set of options.
(edit possibly to come in the future)
A game needs to have enough viable characters to be interesting, yes. However, ALL of its characters needn't be viable. SF3: Third Strike has maybe 6 tourney-usable characters, but SF3 is still played competitively to this day. Also Melee, realistically, has less than half the cast usable, and it's still an okay game. But when we talk about allowing a tech/character to weed 6 characters out of a 35-character game, things get messy. Brawl gets called all kinds of names, flame wars begin, and nobody is happy until the process is over, past, and long forgotten.
I think a lot of this ban-wagon stuff, while the result of justified feelings by dedicated X-person mainers, is an unjustified over-reaction to the natural evolution of a tournament game. How many fighting games do you know where every character is tourney playable? How about 70% of the characters? 50%? 30%? I honestly don't know ALL of these numbers, but GGXX:AC is the ONLY game where I know 50% or more of the characters can win tournaments if played properly. MvC series, SF Alpha, SSF2T, KoF '98, KoF XI, SSBM... I'm pretty sure at least 25-30% of the characters in each of those games are unusable (or at least VERY un-wise) in a tournament setting. Somebody more knowledgeable than me, please provide statistics. I am too tired to check the exact numbers right now. Thanks in advance.
In SSBM, Sheik, Falco, and Marth ruin the entire bottom half of the cast (taken together or individually). Sheik's d-throw chain, almost by itself, renders a lot of characters weak and useless at her feet. SSBM lives on, though. Oh, and Sheik has long since been toppled from God Tier.
I think SSBB is just at that critical early stage in a game's competitive development, where some of the fat gets trimmed and feelings get hurt left and right. I'm truly sorry for all the DK mains out there who get new orifices torn when their opponent picks D3. And everyone else facing similar situations. Just bear with it, though, be open to switching mains, and in a year or two, we'll all be laughing. Just like all the SSBM players who called for a ban on Sheik or Marth when the extents of their shut-down match-ups were first discovered.
I am VERY sleepy right now, so my thoughts may not be perfectly coherent. Feel free to comment, correct, or flat out tear my argument apart. Just have fun doing it and consider the basic premise of my argument - it's okay for a few characters to fall by the wayside, as long as the game as a whole still retains a reasonable set of options.
(edit possibly to come in the future)
Melee had 26 characters. Of those characters, four were considered truly tournament viable at the highest levels. The individuals who could place in the top with any lower character were few and far between, while many countless individuals placed highly with the top tier. That means that only 15% of the cast were viable in tournament. No one had an issue with this. Moreover, few even thought it was a borderline problem.
If 85% of the cast being borderline useless or worse is acceptable, I don't see why it can't be a benchmark of sorts, especially given that Brawl is a larger game, with more characters, thereby making percentages of the full cast larger populations by default. Hell, I don't see why percent should be the primary question. Even if only two or three characters in any game, no matter the cast size, are viable, that's not one, and I don't have much of a problem with it, although I agree it would get boring. But Brawl's still pretty neat in that regard, with at least six characters consistently netting top placements at the largest tournaments. Six. And that's with all of the "broken" and "unfair" stuff that hasn't yet been banned. In context, that so many characters can survive through so many "broken" tactics is astounding.
If 85% of the cast being borderline useless or worse is acceptable, I don't see why it can't be a benchmark of sorts, especially given that Brawl is a larger game, with more characters, thereby making percentages of the full cast larger populations by default. Hell, I don't see why percent should be the primary question. Even if only two or three characters in any game, no matter the cast size, are viable, that's not one, and I don't have much of a problem with it, although I agree it would get boring. But Brawl's still pretty neat in that regard, with at least six characters consistently netting top placements at the largest tournaments. Six. And that's with all of the "broken" and "unfair" stuff that hasn't yet been banned. In context, that so many characters can survive through so many "broken" tactics is astounding.
One important distinction to make is:
Over-centralization by choice and over-centralization by nature.
Nobody cares if tomorrow, everyone started playing Peach, thus over-centralizing the metagame. At least, nobody should care enough to try to ban Peach should that happen.
But if something is programmed in such a way that pretty much everything else becomes unviable and you have to employ it to stand a reasonable chance of winning, then ban away.
Thus, "popularity" and "by choice" is irrelevant.
Over-centralization by choice and over-centralization by nature.
Nobody cares if tomorrow, everyone started playing Peach, thus over-centralizing the metagame. At least, nobody should care enough to try to ban Peach should that happen.
But if something is programmed in such a way that pretty much everything else becomes unviable and you have to employ it to stand a reasonable chance of winning, then ban away.
Thus, "popularity" and "by choice" is irrelevant.
adumbrodeus
Smash Legend
This is one ban criteria, the complete ban criteria is whole nother topic realistically speaking.
Overcentralization in it's most extreme form (one character renders the entire cast unviable, or one tactic does the same or renders all other tactics unviable) is the only universally agreed ban criteria.
However, different people draw the line at different places. Many people drew the line for tactics at 5 characters (I believe yourself included). For that reason, defining what the term entails is a fundamental discussion for our community. We NEED a definition to work under.
Technically speaking, somebody could just give a definition, but because of the two contentious ban topics any criteria that allows or bans those two things will be attacked by the crowd on the other side automatically, that's why the community needs to come with it as a group effort.
Possibly, but once a definition is accepted, people would need to research the match-ups enough to be sure whether or not this is the case.
I understand what you're saying, but I wasn't talking about number of unviable characters IN GENERAL, (though, that is a possible outside ban criteria, but that's a seperate issue), I was talking about individual characters independantly rendering a character nonviable.
If a character is hard-countered by two highly popular characters, then banning one isn't going to change that.
We'll probably need to define "popular" though based on what actually renders tournament unviable, and add a few more qualifacations, which is also up for discussion.
The main point is we don't ban characters under overcentralization if they don't actually effectively centralize the metagame much.
How is losing a tactic which guarantees him a win not losing anything? In what alternate universe does that constitute not losing anything?
Isn't over-centralisation when the metagame revolves around finding a way to beat a single (or very few) thing? I was never too sure.
Anyway, can't we ban DDD's infinite as an infinite? As in, they can chain grab to a certain percent before stopping. IIRC someone said that only DK can be infinite-grabbed at any percent (so sucks to be him), but by putting a percent limit, wouldn't that salvage the other characters? Sorry if this is wrong, I've never had a reason to learn much about DDD's infinite.
Anyway, can't we ban DDD's infinite as an infinite? As in, they can chain grab to a certain percent before stopping. IIRC someone said that only DK can be infinite-grabbed at any percent (so sucks to be him), but by putting a percent limit, wouldn't that salvage the other characters? Sorry if this is wrong, I've never had a reason to learn much about DDD's infinite.
adumbrodeus
Smash Legend
Pretty much, but the point of this is defining what exactly is "very few" as far as the community is concerned.
Because "very few" isn't an actual number or percent, it's ambiguous, it includes a massive gray area. That's what this thread is about, defining explicit numbers or ratios so this loses it's subjectivity.
This thread isn't about DDD's infinites, though the conclusion might effect whether or not it's banned (if a seperate addition criteria isn't decided on), still this is about standards, not any individual ban question.
Still, the possibility for an infinite stall can be dealt with by a rule that removes that potential without removing it's "auto-kill" attribute. This means that a seperate ban criteria is needed. Several suggestions were put forth in the thread relating to it's banning.
The Halloween Captain
Smash Master
It's not losing anything because a guarenteed win is nothing. Unless you only play the game to win money from other people. In which case a guarenteed win is free money.
I don't believe in handing out free money.
Think about it though - if you know who will win before the matchup starts, there's no reason to play anymore. The loser could forfeit in advance, because the outcome is already known. This is not only true for one or two characters, This is true of 15% of D3's matchups.
The Halloween Captain
Smash Master
Revised suggested requirements for a ban:
"For a ban to be instituted, major tournaments in one or more regions must already execute the ban with moderate critical success by attendies. The ban must be clearly defined, and cannot limit the tactics of the character in question in any other way than to eliminate a single tactic from the character's game that significantly alters the matchup. The ban can only fix a single attack/tactic that causes the matchup in which it is employed to be worse than 95-5 prior to the implementation of the ban. The matchup muct be at least 80-20 or better after the ban. This means that the matchup must change so that the limitted character wins 1 in 20 matches or less when the tactic is employed, and 1 in 5 or more matches when the tactic is banned. A ban must be clearly defined and enforcible. The ban cannot prevent the affected character from fighting to it's full potential - in other words, the ban cannot restrict a tactic in a way that makes a different tactic illegal, under the wording of the ban, nor can the ban limit the character in matchups that the tactic does not make 95-5.
The tactic must have at least four months given to search for a counter tactic. If counter tactics does not improve the matchup to more even than 95-5, the tactic may be banned. Not all tactics which fall under this criteria need to be banned, but tactics that fall under this criteria can be banned because of their damage to the metagame, as they qualify as detrimental enough to the metagame to warrent a ban. The negative effects on the metagame should be studied before implementing a ban, while taking into account the tournament scene in which the tactic is banned. This criteria cannot be applied to characters or stages, only an individual tactic of an individual character. Universal tactics cannot be banned for individual characters, and a universal tactic cannot be banned under this criteria. This criteria can be altered or nullified by a 3/5's majority. Any tacitcs banned under this criteria can be re-instated by a majority vote. This criteria can be used to decide if a tactic is banworthy, any tactic that falls under this criteria may be considered for ban without consideration for whether the ban is warrented, for this is a criteria by which a ban is warrented. A tactic that falls under this criteria does not need to be banned if the community does not wish to do so."
To be clear, a universal technique is a technique multiple characters can do to the same effect, such as an infinity against Wario. However, a Zero Suit Samus infinity can only be done by Zero Suit Samus, so it can be banned, provided it qualifies under the other criteria.
Feel free to edit this, I'm not the best legalist.
"For a ban to be instituted, major tournaments in one or more regions must already execute the ban with moderate critical success by attendies. The ban must be clearly defined, and cannot limit the tactics of the character in question in any other way than to eliminate a single tactic from the character's game that significantly alters the matchup. The ban can only fix a single attack/tactic that causes the matchup in which it is employed to be worse than 95-5 prior to the implementation of the ban. The matchup muct be at least 80-20 or better after the ban. This means that the matchup must change so that the limitted character wins 1 in 20 matches or less when the tactic is employed, and 1 in 5 or more matches when the tactic is banned. A ban must be clearly defined and enforcible. The ban cannot prevent the affected character from fighting to it's full potential - in other words, the ban cannot restrict a tactic in a way that makes a different tactic illegal, under the wording of the ban, nor can the ban limit the character in matchups that the tactic does not make 95-5.
The tactic must have at least four months given to search for a counter tactic. If counter tactics does not improve the matchup to more even than 95-5, the tactic may be banned. Not all tactics which fall under this criteria need to be banned, but tactics that fall under this criteria can be banned because of their damage to the metagame, as they qualify as detrimental enough to the metagame to warrent a ban. The negative effects on the metagame should be studied before implementing a ban, while taking into account the tournament scene in which the tactic is banned. This criteria cannot be applied to characters or stages, only an individual tactic of an individual character. Universal tactics cannot be banned for individual characters, and a universal tactic cannot be banned under this criteria. This criteria can be altered or nullified by a 3/5's majority. Any tacitcs banned under this criteria can be re-instated by a majority vote. This criteria can be used to decide if a tactic is banworthy, any tactic that falls under this criteria may be considered for ban without consideration for whether the ban is warrented, for this is a criteria by which a ban is warrented. A tactic that falls under this criteria does not need to be banned if the community does not wish to do so."
To be clear, a universal technique is a technique multiple characters can do to the same effect, such as an infinity against Wario. However, a Zero Suit Samus infinity can only be done by Zero Suit Samus, so it can be banned, provided it qualifies under the other criteria.
Feel free to edit this, I'm not the best legalist.
I'm sorry, have you heard of my friends, Competitive gaming and logic?
How is it not losing something? In what alternate universe is it not losing something when something is removed? Even if I was something obscure no one uses, banning it from play is still removing something. It is not possible argue that you are not removing something from play when banning it.
Suck it up and deal. Switch characters. This is Competitive Gaming, nor Fairness Heaven. Only fanboys whine about their favorite characters getting torn up by matchups and wants things banned.
If you are true Competitive gamer, you either suck it up and eat the ****ty matchup or you switch characters. Competitive gaming is about Competitive gaming, not playing as your favourite character and expecting to always have a chance at winning.
Suck it up and deal or switch characters. Plenty of matchups have forfeits since in high level play, it practically impossible to win them. Deal with it.
People only whine about this since it's actually possible to artifically change the matchup by banning a specific tactic as opposed to matchups that are just as bad or close to as bad but which just have one character destroy the other in general.
The matchup is bad, deal with it.
No. Overcentralization is when one technique is entirely unbeatable for any member of the cast except for the character performing the technique.
This is why something that fits the criteria will be banned. But as of yet, there is no indication whatsoever that any tactic or character equals free money. I think this is a valid indicator than nothing fits ban criteria at this point.
The Halloween Captain
Smash Master
No.
By the way, you are right, you take something away, you take something away. The garbage man takes something from me once a week, but I don't mind, it would stink up my house otherwise.
Umby
Smash Master
Then again, there are people that DO mind having their character or one of their character's tactics taken away from them.
The Halloween Captain
Smash Master
This is a good point.
Think we can get Samurai to set up a poll on the D3 boards?
You see, what make's D3's infinity so special is tha the people who main D3 actually agree with banning it, from what I've seen. Even the D3 mainers think it's too cheap.
BTW, Yuna, I don't actually have any matchups that are affected by a D3 infinity ban. I play none of the characters involved.
adumbrodeus
Smash Legend
So what about when there is only one possible counter, doesn't that overcentralize the metagame?
I'm sorry, but drawing the line at 1 and only 1 leads to situations where you have one 1 character/deck/tactic/whatever and it's immiediate counter, and that's it. If that one thing renders everything but it's immiediate counter unplayable, then banning it is fair and has a great deal of precident.
But acknowledge that the point of the thread is to define what qualifies as overcentralization. There is not actual number of somethings made unviable by something that is universally established as the ban criteria.
Referencing to it like it's already decided does no good.
Which reminds me, thoughts on ratios of centralization required to ban 2 characters that define a metagame by themselves? 3? etc
The Halloween Captain
Smash Master
Actually, if you have three, your probably good in a normal fighter.
The only real problem isn't a centralization issue, but a "why the **** do we allow D3 to do such an incredibly broken tactic, a tactic which has been banned in some regions and is incredibly easy to ban from tourneys, with only beneficial effects to the metagame."
And I'm not a fan of "Because that's how fighting games are played."
I laughed. Really.
It failed here.
The argument was that you do not take anything away by banning it. The argument was garbage.
The Halloween Captain
Smash Master
Well, actually, the arguement was that your taking something away so crappy that it is more like adding something to the metagame than subtracting from it.
No, the argument was that you weren't taking anything away. That is what was said in the post I replied to.
Also, way to go to conveniently ignore where I pointed out how your proposed requirements for a ban fail miserably.
D3 having 80-20s against the characters he can infinite without the infinite. Pray tell, dear Sir, do you have any insight into how Brawl works at all, or are you just winging it and bluffing, hoping no one will ever call you out on it?
Calixto
Smash Apprentice
Sorry, I forgot we were talking about competitive smash, where if punching a guy in the balls gets you a win, then by all means do it.
The Halloween Captain
Smash Master
Please tell, when you argue objective truths, do you just guess the properties of the moves you discuss, or do you have actual experience?
But staying within this thread;
I am not totally sure what you mean when you say none of D3's matchups are 80-20 or better without the infinite. You are right, one of the qualities of my writing style is that it requires you to look at metaphores. So if you never read into the text, you don't get anything. Taking away the D3 infinity was taking away nothing, in the sense that there is no downside to the gameplay when it is done, and D3's infinite is broken trash that should be thrown away. There is no disadvantage to taking D3's infinity away. Removing a perfectly viable tactic is an advantage in this situation, in my opinion. You call it a disadvantage. Therefore, we will never agree. Was that enough comprehending for you?
Why is it unfair to, in, say, a fight of anything-goes, go for a man's most sensitive areas?
Why is it less unfair than going for his head, which could actually be fatal, instead of his testicles, which could be, I don't know, sterilizing? As long as the rules do not prohibit it, it is fair.
Calixto
Smash Apprentice
In martial arts there are rules which I suppose most people understand.
In street fights there is something called honor, which I'm guessing you don't understand. You could win a street fight by kicking a guy in the balls, which is technically 'fair', but you would from then on be known as a *****.
But maybe I'm just too old, and maybe kids these days think kicking each other in the balls is a completely acceptable way of winning a fight.
In street fights there is something called honor, which I'm guessing you don't understand. You could win a street fight by kicking a guy in the balls, which is technically 'fair', but you would from then on be known as a *****.
But maybe I'm just too old, and maybe kids these days think kicking each other in the balls is a completely acceptable way of winning a fight.
You're just being ********. This is in no way applicable to in-game mechanics.
The whole point of street fights is that there is no honor. Dear Jesus.
None of that matters. Go back to Adumbrodeus and my posts that explained why jacking with the game to increase diversity when such vague and undefined lines are the foundation of the decision leads to even more problems in the future.
What part of "If there are no rules prohibiting it" was too hard for you to understand?
If I ever found myself in a fight, I will go for what will win me the fight, not what will have people view me as a hero instead of a *******. I would never voluntarily participate in street fights, so it'd be fights I'd involuntarily participate in, such as being attacked.
And you bet ya' I'll kick them in the balls.
The Halloween Captain
Smash Master
adumbrodeus
Smash Legend
Again, that's what we're discussing.
Though personally, the thresholds for multiple characters should be dependant on what percentage of the cast a single character comprises of.
I disagree, but that is an issue for the DDD thread.
Well, taking actions outside of the context of the game (hacking, physical attacks, unplugging controllers etc.) are banned under the default ruleset. But sure, if a person decides to set up a brawl tournament where that's legal, why not?
Just don't expect me to attend, I only attend tournaments that ban that or require cups.
Martial arts, yes, they have predefined rules for the purposes of training and competition. I participate in tournaments and sparing. I've developed rulesets for a few of both. I just make it clear what is and is not allowed. I'm good at that because I think outside the box, so I come up with loopholes and exceptions that can be plugged very easily. But the point is, Martial arts have established rules, and following the rules is the honor involved NOT inventing your own rules.
Street fighting?
BS, somebody attacks me on the street and I'm more concerned about survival then keeping up rules. Striking to the balls just aren't that effective, reletively speaking.
If it's a contest type of thing (which has happened in a couple of fights I've been involved in) we make it explicitly clear what strikes and techniques are and aren't allowed.
Honor is fighting your hardest and not holding back. Following arbitrary rules that I expect my opponent to follow as well that don't exist anywhere but inside my head is asking for my opponent to take advantage of my weakness. In a real fight, you hesitate to go for an advantage, well that's a good way to wind up dead.
Don't be an idiot, SURVIVE.
You could TRY, that's the problem with picking fights with random people on the street, you never know who's better then you.I would kick ya' in the balls too.
And then I'd steal your wallet
And then, since you're the agressor, I still have the police.
The Halloween Captain
Smash Master
No, I meant I would Kick Yuna in the balls. Sorry for the misunderstanding.